linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] writeback: remove unneeded GDTC_INIT_NO

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Zfr9my_tfxO-N6HS@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 08:15:39 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	willy@...radead.org, bfoster@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz,
	dsterba@...e.com, mjguzik@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
	peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] writeback: remove unneeded GDTC_INIT_NO_WB

Hello,

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 07:02:22PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> We never use gdtc->dom set with GDTC_INIT_NO_WB, just remove unneeded
> GDTC_INIT_NO_WB
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
..
>  void global_dirty_limits(unsigned long *pbackground, unsigned long *pdirty)
>  {
> -	struct dirty_throttle_control gdtc = { GDTC_INIT_NO_WB };
> +	struct dirty_throttle_control gdtc = { };

Even if it's currently not referenced, wouldn't it still be better to always
guarantee that a dtc's dom is always initialized? I'm not sure what we get
by removing this.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun